Keep your silly old gay-mariage disputes to yourselves, says the Supreme Court:
The U.S. Supreme Court announced Tuesday that it would not hear a challenge to the District's 10-month-old same-sex marriage law, marking a likely end to legal disputes over gay marriages in the city. But opponents of the law say they will press Congress to intervene, potentially requiring the city to hold a voter referendum.
The high court declined without comment to hear the case, six months after the the D.C. Court of Appeals had narrowly upheld the law.
Opponents and supporters of the law agreed Tuesday that the decision means the debate shifts away from the courts.
This is the kind of big-stakes social issue that always sends proponents or opponents into howling rages depending on how the court rules. But couldn't this be an occasion for celebration no matter which side we're on? The Constitution says nothing about gay marriage, so why should the courts be involved (except when the inevitable case involving full-faith-and-credit recognition comes along)? "Opponents and supporters of the law agreed Tuesday that the decision means the debate shifts away from the courts." Horrors, will that mean, a legislative solution? How will this country survive if we start confining law-making to legislatures?
Comments
Couple of thoughts: The Constitution says nothing about heterosexual marriage either. I don't know, but I would expect that the court would strike down a law prohibiting marriage entirely and I would expect even more that the Court would strike down a law prohibiting marriage between individuals who are not at least 5' 10" tall (or some other arbitrary distinction.)
Anyone can come up with any religion they want, and decide what that religion recognizes as a valid marriage. That's their business.
But when the government gives different recognition for married citizens than it does for single citizens, it comes down to equal protection under the law. The government has no business, at all, deciding which adult citizens can marry/enter into civil unions with each other, regardless of race/sex/gender/sexual orientation.
And no group of people, regardless of which religion they follow, has any right to use the government to enforce their particular idea of a valid marriage on everyone else.